Quoting Sebastien Bacher (2020-08-04 23:14:50) > Hey Aurélien, Jonas, thanks for the replies > > Le 04/08/2020 à 19:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > Closing this bugreport does not imply that conversation is closed, > > only that with the currently presented material there is no further > > action. We can continue the conversation in a "closed" bugreport. > > You are still most welcome to provide more information - e.g. more > > details on why (if so) you think that it is relevant that Debian > > (not only Ubuntu) uses the build flags that you requested. > > > > In addition to the (little) information presented here, I based my > > judgement on some casual conversation on irc. I explicitly asked > > there to please share information in a bugreport but nothing came of > > that. > > Sorry for the lack of informations and the ignorance of the context. > I'm not working on this package, just wanted to see it updated in > Ubuntu so went to do the merge and saw that the only diff we had was > recent and not forwarded to Debian so I did that. Makes sense. Thanks for the additional context. > I'm not familiar with riscv64 nor the difference between the Debian > and the Ubuntu port and why it would fail only in Ubuntu. From what I > can see the build was tried on > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pandoc/2.8.1-2ubuntu1 and failed > after 2.5 days without letting a build log. > > Then Dimitri (Cc here now) added a delta to --disable-optimization, > which he had done in a previous upload for armhf/arm64. Since I saw > you basically addressed a similar issue in Debian now with other flag > I though it would make sense to do the same on riscv64. > > The build time are similarly slow on Debian but didn't fail at the end > so maybe the change is wrong there and more details are needed ... > Dimitri could you help there? In my understanding (lacking any evidence, based only on irc chatter), Ubuntu compiles riscv64 in an emulator, not on real hardware. > > Hope that helps. A bit. But yes, if ehat you need is to limit the > > delta of Ubuntu packaging and that alone, then I really am not > > helping here. > I've redone the patch to be an Ubuntu specific rules in debian/rules, > that shouldn't come to much cost to Debian and is quite common in > other packages [1]. If you believe it's wrong and that riscv64 > shouldn't be consider a low memory architecture / you don't want to > carry a rule specific to Ubuntu then it's your choice. It does not help to restructure the patch to only affect Ubuntu, Sorry. The package is maintained in Debian for all users of Debian, which includes derivatives of Debian using the package as-is, or rebuilding from source as-is, or rebuilding from source with patches applied. What is not accepted is maintaining in Debian any patches for downstream-only needs - regardless that others in Debian are willing to do so. > I will try to drop the delta and see if the build still fail and if we > a build log of the error I will expect that to continue to be very slow, due to the build being done on emulated hardware. Whether or not that is acceptable for Ubuntu is a concern internally for that distribution. What makes it a concern worthy of consideration for Debian to maintain is if it is a rumor - i.e. if building on real risc64 hardware is extremely slow. Debian does not yet officially build for riscv64, and I am unaware if the unofficial build is done emulated or not. You might try ask the porters about that. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature